In a recent development in the ongoing legal dispute between Apple and Epic Games, Apple attempted to seek an extension for producing a significant volume of documents due by September 30. The request came as a surprise to Magistrate Judge Thomas Hixson, who had previously set the deadline to ensure that Apple complied with an injunction related to changes in its App Store rules.
Initially, Apple had estimated that the task would involve reviewing approximately 650,000 documents, but this figure later ballooned to over 1.3 million. Judge Hixson rejected Apple’s request for a two-week extension, deeming the company’s actions as “bad behavior.”
The judge noted that Apple and Epic had been submitting joint status reports every two weeks, and the dramatic increase in the number of documents was not mentioned in prior communications.
He expressed skepticism regarding Apple’s claims, emphasizing that it was “simply not believable” that the company only became aware of the document count in the days leading up to the deadline. Hixson pointed out that the situation raised concerns about the accuracy of Apple’s previous reports and its overall commitment to comply with court orders in a timely manner.
Judge Hixson Denies Apple’s Deadline Extension in Epic Games Legal Dispute, Criticizes Company’s Actions
Judge Hixson underscored the availability of resources to Apple, stating that the company has “nearly infinite resources” to handle such tasks efficiently. This remark highlights the expectation that a company of Apple’s stature should be able to manage compliance with legal obligations without significant delays.
The judge’s insistence on the deadline reflects a broader concern about the potential for companies with substantial resources to manipulate timelines and expectations in legal proceedings.
In his order, Hixson characterized Apple’s behavior as a “classic moral hazard,” suggesting that the company’s late request for an extension undermined the integrity of the legal process.
He criticized the timing of Apple’s announcement, which came just four days before the deadline, implying that the company may have been aware of the impending challenges for a longer period. This unexpected request not only raises questions about Apple’s credibility but also its responsibility in adhering to judicial directives.
The ongoing legal battle between Apple and Epic continues to draw attention, particularly regarding issues of competition and App Store practices. As the court proceedings unfold, the focus will remain on Apple’s compliance with the judge’s orders and the implications for its business operations moving forward.
The denial of the extension signifies the court’s intent to hold Apple accountable and to ensure that it fulfills its obligations as mandated by the judicial system.
